↓ Skip to main content

Multiple peripheral typical carcinoid tumors of the lung: associated with sclerosing hemangiomas.

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multiple peripheral typical carcinoid tumors of the lung: associated with sclerosing hemangiomas.
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-8-97
Pubmed ID
Authors

Young Kim, Yoo-Duk Choi, Beum Jin Kim, In-Jae Oh, Sang-Yun Song, Jong-Hee Nam, Chang-Soo Park

Abstract

This study presents a first case of multiple peripheral typical carcinoid tumors associated with sclerosing hemangiomas in the lung. A 52-year-old male presented with incidentally detected multiple pulmonary nodules on a simple chest X-ray during routine health check-up. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest showed multiple nodular lesions in the middle and lower lobes of the right lung. These were initially suspected as inflammatory lesions due to miliary tuberculosis. However, possibility of malignancy could not be excluded and right lower lobe lobectomy was performed. Histopathologically, some nodules including two largest nodules were composed of small round to spindle shaped cells with fine chromatin pattern, whereas the rest of the sclerotic nodules were composed of two epithelial cell types- surface cells and round cells. The final diagnosis of this case was multiple peripheral typical carcinoid tumors associated with sclerosing hemangiomas of the lung. For past three years of post-surgery follow up period, no new lesions or changes in the right middle lobe have been identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 33%
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Librarian 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,081,510
of 4,510,149 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#358
of 549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,137
of 120,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,510,149 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 549 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.